Thank you for your input. The "simple" explanations that you provide are, at best, speculations. The magnitude of the changes between homo sapients
and their presumed predecessors is such that science would need to show several missing links to justify evolution.
A species, be it humanoid or animal, cannot transform in such essential and profound way without leaving trace of said changes.
This is connected profoundly with the subject of language, the way our voice box is built, etc.
The simplest explanation is great to fill in the blanks, but it is the last resort, especially in science.

Thank you for your input. The "simple" explanations that you provide are, at best, speculations. The magnitude of the changes between homo sapients
and their presumed predecessors is such that science would need to show several missing links to justify evolution.

No the matter of the fused chromosomes is a known fact, and the other two are in accord with other changes seen in many species.

Missing links is a creationist term for a transitional fossil of which many exist as does the genetic and archaeological data. Creationism has no
scientific backing os one goes with the theory that fits the evidence, ie evolution.

A species, be it humanoid or animal, cannot transform in such essential and profound way without leaving trace of said changes.

and such changes have been found, Denial is not just a Bay in Australia I see....

This is connected profoundly with the subject of language, the way our voice box is built, etc.

Such evidence had been found you might want to look at what Lieberman and other scientists have found in regards to the development of the largynx,
longer neck, the development of speech centers in the brain and the mouth and tongue could make sounds accurately.

You may also wish to look at the debate over whether Neanderthals could speak which focus on their less developed largynx and structure of the
neck.

The simplest explanation is great to fill in the blanks, but it is the last resort, especially in science.

or simply make up stuff as the creationist do based on religious dogma that it self was made up.....that doesn't work very well ya know!

For humans to have language we need two things, the proper anatomy and the proper genes.

Both Neanderthals and modern Humans have the same FOXP2 gene which has been identified as being associated with language. Both Neanderthals and H.
sapiens may have got this FOXP2 gene from an earlier ancestor.

The second requirement is anatomical, specifically the larynx (voice box) and hyoid bone which supports it. In the image below you can see that
Neanderthal's hyoid bone is more similar to ours than a chimp or gorilla.

To me it seems both a modern voice box and FOXP2 gene appeared in H. heidelbergensis, and maybe to some degree in late H. erectus/ H. ergaster.
The original source article points to a date 600,000 to 800,000 year ago, not 1 million +.

If you saw this Neanderthal in the mall, would you think him a different species?

true that all European languages are just dialects of a seminal language out of India, but NOT true that it took millions of years.
try researching all the scientists who debunk evolution (a theory pushed by Adlous Huxley's grandfather).
viable T-rex blood cells found, river silt build-up, fossilized trees w no roots, DNA complexity and more all point towards the fact that evolution
and the supposed age of the earth is B.S. see former professor of evolution Walter Veith and others.
Actually, the more I cross-reference it, the more I find the Bible is the truth and Christ's purpose VERY real: forgiveness needed at judgement.
Jesus is our Advocate in a reality of laws and free will. It seems God will not allow evil unrepentant, to exist for eternity.

Not really. The concepts of your ancestors' affected their actions, which affected their genes, which affected your genes, which affects your future
offspring's genes, and their actions, and their thoughts, and their language skills that will bring forth the reproduction of their concepts.

It's all concept reproduction, but I wouldn't say our spoken language is as good as genes' language until our spoken language can reshape/create
form with our own will as readily as God can do it. Tulpas/thoughtforms/mind over matter/placebo effect will be the apex of our linguistic evolution -
genetics are much closer to that apex than our speech is.

Albeit somewhat similar to the modern human larynx and hyoid bone, neanderthal's or denisovan's for that matter are not "proof" of evolution, in
the darwinist sense at least. Our species coexisted with these "prehumans," most surely interbred with them. No geneticist in the world would accept
that we evolved from them - evolution does not happen almost overnight by leaps and bounds, no matter how often one ponders brain vs brawn.
Modern man's mitochondrial dna has been found to be circa 200,000 years old, with South Africa as a place of origin.
I am neither religious, nor creationist, but I will not stand for speculation, where they throw a theory and try to offer it as "fact."
It is often said here and elsewhere to keep an open mind, deny ignorance etc., but how quick one is to dismiss the other's opinion, be at the ready
to label.
We know nothing about neanderthal's language, do not know whether modern man actually borrowed words, or whetever else pertaining to language from
them. It is just a hypothesis, as the case often goes with our scientists.

I am neither religious, nor creationist, but I will not stand for speculation, where they throw a theory and try to offer it as "fact."

It is often said here and elsewhere to keep an open mind, deny ignorance etc., but how quick one is to dismiss the other's opinion, be at the ready to
label.

We know nothing about neanderthal's language, do not know whether modern man actually borrowed words, or whetever else pertaining to language from
them. It is just a hypothesis, as the case often goes with our scientists.

You are correct we didn't evolve from D and N we had a common ancestor. Yes (satire mode on) go with religious answers since they are evidenced based
(satire mode off). I do think we can agree that the theory presented in the OP is a theory - and rather speculative one at that.

There has always been one universal language, and that's body language.
With the increase of brain capacity, and increase of intelligence, we slowly have developed ways how to express ourselves not just through signing,
pointing, calling, subtle body movements, but also through various vocalizations. We have made the jump from associating sounds to symbols, our
semantic web has expanded and we can document and pronounce our thoughts more precisely than ever before. However, we can never quite say it as we can
express it with the subtle old ways.
Words only approach the thought, where the body lives the thought.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.